Home Secretary Theresa May used the Tory party conference to re-ignite the anti-refugee and anti-migrant rhetoric. She used the opportunity to pretend that economic migrants are flooding in to our country, and intentionally muddled refugees with migrants in the hope that the general public can’t understand the difference between the two. She also peddled the populist idea that migrants are stealing the jobs of British people, despite all evidence to the contrary. Mwhahaha.
Unfortunately, people who aren’t seeking re-election and who aren’t seeking to beat Osborne to succeed David Cameron, have chimed in with some actual statistics. In fact the Home Office itself has admitted that there is little evidence that economic migrants steal British jobs, but instead they help economic growth and plug vital skills gaps, in particular in the NHS. Hopefully the government can suppress the civil service in future so that we can govern by fear, not facts.
Earlier in the week we reported how MP Philip Davies urged the prime minister to not help refugees. Fortunately David Cameron has taken his words to heart. Yesterday the European Commission asked all member states to take part in a plan to redistribute all refugees around the continent so that everyone pulls their weight in the refugee crisis (which, just to be clear, is a crisis for the refugees, not a crisis for us). David Cameron confirmed that we are already taking 14 refugees a day from the Syria region, and won’t be helping out by taking anyone from elsewhere in Europe. Mwhahaha.
Essentially, our poorer neighbours in Italy, Greece and Hungary are having to take care of refugees on their own. Greece, if you recall, is so poor that anyone who goes there on holiday is advised to take wads of cash in case the country completely collapses. In July, there were reports of the country being about to run out of food and medicine. And Italy and Hungary aren’t exactly rich countries.
So what is David Cameron’s excuse? Apparently taking in refugees won’t stop the civil war, so there’s no point encouraging them by helping them. It’s like refusing to buy any drinks when it’s your round, just in case the whole pub wants one, and anyway everyone will be thirsty again next week so what’s the point. But still having champagne cocktails when it’s someone else’s round. Mwhahaha.
Tory MP Philip Davies confirmed today what all evil people have been thinking. There is no need for us to help refugees – because someone else will probably help them;
Mr. Davies says that the UKs offer to help with nearly 14 refugees a day is not what the silent majority want. It’s too many. Apparently the silent majority, who are presumably just as evil as Mr. Davies, believe that since a refugee will be just as safe in Germany as they would be here, there’s no need for us to help out – let the Germans do it all. And they are – Germany took in as many people in one day as David Cameron has agreed to take in two years. We might be a very affluent country in comparison to the rest of the world, and even in comparison to most of Europe (we rank 5th in the world, and 2nd in Europe), but that’s no reason for us to want to help those worse off. Yes, we’ll help the rich, banks, the oil industry and arms dealers, but not refugees. Mwhahaha.
It’s a remarkably similar stance to the welfare policy – if we leave people to starve, food banks will cover it. It’s wonderfully evil – rely on other people having compassion to cover for your own complete lack of it.
Yesterday we asked what was Cameron actually committing to when he said we would take thousands more Syrians. News comes out today to confirm that we were right to be sceptical.
As details have come out, it seems that we will only help someone who;
a) Has fled from their home to a refugee camp on the Syrian border, and
b) is a victim of torture or sexual abuse, or be too frail to survive in the refugee camp, and
c) is put forward by the UN as a candidate for the scheme, and
d) is then accepted by UK officials, who make their own decisions on who they want and they don’t want, and
e) there is a council in the UK who is prepared to house them
There are an awful lot of desperate people who are not going to tick those boxes. We know that’s true because this is not a new scheme – it’s the one which has seen us accept 216 people so far. It doesn’t help anyone who has already left the Syria border area. It especially doesn’t help anyone who is already in Europe. Children will still be killed crossing the sea, because this scheme offers them no fresh hope. Cameron has done nothing new at all, and is trying to get good press out of it. Mwhahaha.
After immense pressure (probably intentionally self generated, as we reported yesterday), David Cameron has agreed to accept “thousands” more Syrians.
Is there anything evil in his change of heart? Well, he’s actually doing a lot of things in a good way – he’s proposed taking refugees from Syria’s border to discourage people from making the trip across the Mediterranean. He’s pledged £100m in support to help people in the refugee camps. All of which sounds superficially good.
But as we have learnt, the Tories are great at saying things that sound good, but end up being evil (e.g. benefits cuts, but not promised tax cuts to match). So what can we hope for? We calculated yesterday that we have a moral duty to help between 40,000 and 150,000 refugees. Cameron has said we will help “thousands”. Our bet is that that is closer to 4,000 than 40,000. Cameron has also said that they won’t be granted Refugee status, but instead will be granted Humanitarian Protection. At the moment that offers many of the same rights, but we’ll see if that changes. Where will the migrants be housed? Their status should allow them to work, and thus rent their own homes. But you don’t get a job on the first day you arrive, so will he allow them to stay in a B&B, or will we have a Sangatte style shanty town? The scope for evil is immense still. Mwahaha.